Study On The Contrast Of Modal Verbs "应该" And "should"

This paper studies “应该” and “should” on the basis of the semantic andsyntax level, and we’ll put the two against the background ofChinese—English contrast. Referring to the actual corpus, We try to find outthe basic characteristics on form and sense, and summarize its regularities,then mainly discuss the two words in the actual applicant situation, and makethe interpretation of the pragmatics—making a dynamic analysis on the basisof semantic contrast.This paper includes six chapters. Chapter one is introduction, whichmainly introduces the background, significance, research status, theoreticalbasis and research method. Chapter two is mainly on Chinese and westernresearch status on modality, and refines the connotation and classification ofmodality, this chapter is the paper’s theoretical basis, and this chapterdescribes the semantic features of “应该” and “should” respectively, thenexpands to the modal expression. Chapter four studies “应该” and “should” onstructural properties, the modal interpretation with body, modal collocationfrom syntactic perspective, and explores the reason and rule, which is also thecore of the article. Chapter five studies the translation of the two on thepremise of analyzing much corpus, and explains the symmetrical andasymmetrical phenomena. The last chapter is conclusion, which summarizesthe main points, innovations and deficiencies in this paper, then puts forward some expectation for the future generations.We make a conclusion: The two modals have common characteristics andpersonal traits in semantic and syntactic aspects. Common characteristics:1、Semantic aspects: They both have epistemic modality and deontic modality.2、Syntactic aspects: They both have basic structure “modal verb+verb”, andalso be inserted some modified or finite elements between them; Affectingpriority matching function, the two only be filtered epistemic modality whenexisting with perfective aspect; Their negative forms are both constituted byadding a negative mark; when we extend investigation scope to the dialect,they both can connect with other modal verbs; Their special questions bothneed a special problematic word. Personal traits:1、Semantic aspects, they stillhave some nuances in the concrete modal meaning.2、Syntactic aspects,“应该+should” constitutes verb—object construction, but “should+verb”constitutes compound predicate, its tightness is far higher than “应该”; When“应该” combines with progressive aspect, it doesn’t only have the meaning ofdeontic modality, but also has epistemic modality, which “should” never has;In the aspect of negation,“应该”can express internal and external negation byplacing negative words before and after, but the negative scope of “should”only be figured out by context; In the aspect of a laparoscope,“应该”connecting with other modal is a very common phenomenon, but this kind ofcollocation on “should” doesn’t exist in the standard English, but only appearsin some dialects, and also only have the forms “should can/could,“may/might should”, These common and personal traits also reflect back symmetrical andasymmetrical translation. In the aspect of general question, the constitutionform (should+verb) and its answer (Yes/No, subject+modal) of “should” bothhave fixed structure, but “应该”（overlapping, adding the interrogative mood）expresses relatively flexibly.